I certainly agree that talkorigins isn't neutral, but I do think they take an objective look at the evidence. In this, and in their lack of "quote mining" and such, I think they do a better job of being scientific than AiG. On the other hand, I give AiG credit for being upfront about their scriptural approach to these things.
However, it is because of the prejudice associated with certain websites that I personally try to find third party sources (e.g. universities, professional journals, credible news organizations or government websites) so that the article stands a better chance of being read by the Lurkers.